Pleasantly plump people - genetic or laziness?

Jimoslimos

cooperguy wrote:

Small proportion = Glandular, Genetic etc.

Vast Majority = Lazy/Couldnt give a toss

I don't think that's 100% true. Quite a lot are due to some minor endocrine disorders and suppression/increased expression of certain hormones.

Why the change now as opposed to years ago?

1) People tend to lead a more sedantery lifestyle (not due to "laziness" but more because of the availability of cheap transport and changes in work practices)
2) Availability of cheap processed food (high fat, sugar & salt)

Therefore people aren't eating more or exercising less - just eating the wrong foods and working in more sedate jobs than previous. A combination of which, along with some genetic factors has lead to an increase in obesity levels.

CiaranC

darkman2 wrote:

Dont you politically correct lemmings have other threads you can spam?

Ah, the final refuge of the intellectually challenged bigot, labelling everyone who objects to their obnoxious tripe as a PC nut.

ellenmelon

CiaranC wrote:

Ah, the final refuge of the intellectually challenged bigot, labelling everyone who objects to their obnoxious tripe as a PC nut.

i love how he does that. ignores eeeverything you say. just repeats the same boring tripe. ive still never seen a boards thread that hasnt veered off topic at some point.
i bet he wouldnt be so obnoxious in 'real life'. i dont pretend to have other views on boards than i have in RL, what would be the point?

darkman2

CiaranC wrote:

bigot.

I think personal attacks are a fundamental rule break on the charter requiring a ban. Not only that - they demolish any credance in your arguments. Your not the only one on this thread.

Dudess wrote:

Don't be an idiot.

Maybe the mods should look at that.

darkman2

ellenmelon wrote:

i love how he does that. ignores eeeverything you say. just repeats the same boring tripe. ive still never seen a boards thread that hasnt veered off topic at some point.
i bet he wouldnt be so obnoxious in 'real life'. i dont pretend to have other views on boards than i have in RL, what would be the point?

I will not get engaged in this for two reasons. You are intentionally trying to make it personal and its off topic. Sorry the convienience does not suit you.

ellenmelon

darkman2 wrote:

I will not get engaged in this for two reasons. You are intentionally trying to make it personal and its off topic. Sorry the convienience does not suit you.

sorry the convienience doesnt suit me? honestly, that makes no sense.

and no, i wasnt making it personal. you assumed this. surely if you've been on boards as long as your info says, you would realise that people cut close to the bone..happens here and happens in real life. get used to it.

ElliotM

It is off topic, but the topic was raised and it's quite interesting.

Sexuality of humans and most primates is not so simple as a nature/nurture dichotomy, it's a combination of factors. Homosexuality has been observed among almost all primate species, and there are certainly Darwinian rationales for this (let's imagine a temporary lack of available females, but males less desperate to let off steam survive because they make fewer rash decisions, and I'm sure there are much better ones in scientific lit).

However our culture is more complicated than this. The example of the Spartans mentioned above may be relevant (I don't know), and certainly pederasty was common practice in ancient Greece and nobody seemed to think it was wrong. That's an ethical issue.

Sexuality is more or less (most humans, including your humbles) flexible, and simple delineations - such as the way the words "homosexual" and "heterosexual" are an example of media misuse of scientific terminology. These are simply labels for observed behaviour.

Same as obesity, there are a number of causes, some are physical, some mental, some are conscious decisions.

Earthhorse

darkman2 wrote:

this dubious claim is naturally enough supported by the politically correct among us much in the same way as the argument that homosexuals are gay mostly not out of choice.

darkman2 wrote:

Id see it as a fundamental rebuke to the nature of reproduction and evolution which gay people cannot be part of for obvious reasons.

darkman2 wrote:

If people want to be gay I dont care but anyone who thinks being gay is natural is pushing it too far IMHO.

Blush_01 wrote:

Do you think that homosexuality is refutable, but heterosexuality isn't?

darkman2 wrote:

God give me strength. Rite. Last thing im going to say on this. In a word 'yes' - to an extent.

darkman2 wrote:

The best I could possibly put homosexuality down to would be some sort of mental deficiency.

Do you think stupidity is genetic, darkman2?

Does it run in your family?

darkman2

After me saying the mods should look at this thread you come out with something daft like that. You also twist my posts inside out to suit your agenda which is not uncommon here.

ElliotM

darkman2 wrote:

After me saying the mods should look at this thread you come out with something daft like that. You also twist my posts inside out to suit your agenda which is not uncommon here.

Ignore that one, then. Respond to mine. I'm interested.

Kingp35

Sandor wrote:

I think the OPs getting a very hard time here. I would agree with him that a persons sexual orientation may be due to nurture rather than nature but we really can't be sure. At the most I would say genes may cause a person to be more inclined in another direction and even then I don't see how that would exclude the propensity towards heterosexual relations. As far as I can see the OP is saying the natural and normal thing is for somebody to be hetero. I agree. It's very basic and can't really be argued. I'm perfectly fine with someone being gay, theres no hate here. I believe he was touching on the fact that if homosexuality were genetic there wouldn't be any. To pass genes on you need to hop on the good foot with the other crowd, don't you know. And if they are then passing on genes (homosexual in nature) without being gay themselves that would bring into play the question of nurture. Take into account spartans for example. All gay (:D) Generalisation there, but they were bummers! It was through nurture. There upbringing. When it came time to have sex with a woman her head would be shaved and she would be taken from behind so as she looked like a boy. I know, I know...
Personally I don't think genes play a part. I think people are being a bit aggressive on this issue. NOW, saying that someone chooses to be gay is rediculous. You don't choose who you are born to, whats put on tv, where you go to school, you don't choose anything at all really when it comes to your upbringing. Also some people here seem to think that an upbringing that would incline you toward gayness would require bed time stories about Bobo the big gay clown. Not so much. The mind is a subtle thing. Thats all I'll say on that...

By far the most intelligent post in this thread.

To the people claiming homosexuality is genetic, you have no concrete proof of this just like there is no proof that it is not genetic.

Dudess wrote:

They, according, to you originally intended for this to happen, no?

No where in this thread did darkman2 say that parents choose to bring their child up so they would be gay. You're putting words in his mouth. Plenty of people believe that homosexuality is caused by nurture and not by nature. You seem to be just as bad as darkman2 by saying it has to be genetic and refusing to acknowledge the fact that it may not be.

By the way darkman2 there is no way that someone chooses to be gay. They either are gay or they're not. the only question is whether homosexuality is caused by nature or nurture and there is no answer to that question yet.

CiaranC

darkman2 wrote:

I think personal attacks are a fundamental rule break on the charter requiring a ban. Not only that - they demolish any credance in your arguments. Your not the only one on this thread.

And now crying to the mods to save you from people pointing out that your ideas are moronic.

You suck at the intarweb.

darkman2

ElliotM wrote:

It is off topic, but the topic was raised and it's quite interesting.

Sexuality of humans and most primates is not so simple as a nature/nurture dichotomy, it's a combination of factors. Homosexuality has been observed among almost all primate species, and there are certainly Darwinian rationales for this (let's imagine a temporary lack of available females, but males less desperate to let off steam survive because they make fewer rash decisions, and I'm sure there are much better ones in scientific lit).

However our culture is more complicated than this. The example of the Spartans mentioned above may be relevant (I don't know), and certainly pederasty was common practice in ancient Greece and nobody seemed to think it was wrong. That's an ethical issue.

Sexuality is more or less (most humans, including your humbles) flexible, and simple delineations - such as the way the words "homosexual" and "heterosexual" are an example of media misuse of scientific terminology. These are simply labels for observed behaviour.

Same as obesity, there are a number of causes, some are physical, some mental, some are conscious decisions.

You see, the problem I have here is that ive no intention of discussing gay people and the only comparison ive made is the way in which sections of society want some minorities to be be embraced and accepted on the basis that its natural or genetic. Even though there is actually not an issue of tolerance here. Thats the only thing ive said. In my opening posts I said clearly I had no problem whatsoever with gay people. I dont care whether someone is gay or not.I dislike the further foisting of a different agenda on the majority by dubious claims of being different because it is natural. Like obese people. Or another that I mentioned - young thugs. Thats as far as I go in relation to homosexuality which this topic is not about and it is OT. People dont like what they see there is a feedback forum. I dont see the problem here. Seems to me some go out of their way to be offended and create problems.

darkman2

CiaranC wrote:

And now crying to the mods to save you from people pointing out that your ideas are moronic.

You suck at the intarweb.

I wonder will you also called the mod that just posted 'moronic'? Keep it up.

darkman2

Kingp35 wrote:

By far the most intelligent post in this thread.


By the way darkman2 there is no way that someone chooses to be gay. They either are gay or they're not. the only question is whether homosexuality is caused by nature or nurture and there is no answer to that question yet.

This has been twisted by others in the thread. I never said someone wakes up one day and actively chooses to be gay. My point really was that I think its more to do with nuture. As someone said earlier the mind is very subtle and exposure to certain things help in deciding what orientation you are. Therefore to an extent its a choice but not a concious one. That does not mean its natural per se. I think upbringing has far more influence. Thats just my opinion. I agree with most of your post.

seamus

Kingp35 wrote:

To the people claiming homosexuality is genetic, you have no concrete proof of this just like there is no proof that it is not genetic.

While it's wildly off-topic, in my mind the most convincing argument comes from it being a genetic trait, however it has nothing really to do with the genes of the person themselves, rather their parents. The sex of a person, while determined by the X-Y coding of chromosomes, is also affected by the administering of a quantity of testosterone to the feotus at a crucial stage of development. Studies (have no links) on rats have shown that it's possible to confuse rats (feminise male rats or masculinise female rats) by screwing with the amount of testosterone released at this stage of pregnancy.

In this way, although it's not a hard-coded genetic trait, it's unavoidable and uncontrollable from the individual's point of view - giving a gay man more testosterone won't make him like women. It'll only make him angry and horny. The same thing it does to most people.

We already have fairly conclusive proof that sexuality isn't linked to genes. Homosexuals can and do have children. The figures don't show that homosexual parent(s) = homosexual children.

So to use my point on-topic, childhood and young adult weight I believe is half and half linked to lifestyle and genetics. Certain people do have a tendancy to put on weight. There's no denying that. I know people who do nothing but sit on their ass, eat takeaways every night and 50 pints of beer at the weekend, and still weigh less than a irish wolfhound. By the same token, I know people who would do a normal-medium amount of exercise, generally eat healthy but still hold onto those few extra pounds. There are steps that both groups can take to alter their weight, but it has to be specifically tailored to their own bodies' traits.

As people get older, metabolisms change, muscle strength and generation changes, and it generally becomes more difficult to maintain weight. Adult obesity and childhood obesity are two very different things. Childhood obesity when caught early, is relatively easy to rectify - children want to be active, and their food intake is controlled by parents, so the weight can be lost quickly, easily and healthily. Children naturally have a higher metabolism, and their growth will consume energy where it doesn't for adults.

ElliotM

Kingp35 wrote:

To the people claiming homosexuality is genetic, you have no concrete proof of this just like there is no proof that it is not genetic.

Genetic or not, it's certainly "natural":
http://www.nhm.uio.no/againstnature/index.html

Also worth a glance (and I know Wikipedia isn't referencable for, say, academic purposes, but the list is interesting):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

The idea that homosexuality is "unnatural" was dead in the water before it was ever dreamt up. Just because the majority of humans don't engage in homosexual practices, or do so quite rarely, doesn't make it unnatural (and I mean literally not in the pejorative sense used by fundamentalists, because you have already stated you are by no means homophobic).

The "genetics" argument is less important in the face of the above. It clearly implies that the reasons are genetic, or at least partially so, we just haven't found them yet. The ol' genome's tricky, after all. And again, there are plenty of Darwinian rationales for it.

Terry

Mahatma coat wrote:

There are a fair few links between genetics and addictons tho, so its kinda on topic but some people r more prone to be addicted to junk food and be lazy


actualy slightly off but on topic, something I saw that really annoyed me a while go, and I've seen a few more since, is over here the Medicare - kinda NHS, SEHB.... thingy, GIVE morbidly obese people - who now have restriced mobility due to their size - FREEEEE Scooterthingys like this to help them get roundthe city sothey can wheel themselves down tothe foodcourt and stuff tehmselves somemore... While at the same time smoking s Banned everywhere.

So the PC brigade goe sall NicotineNAzi and we have a complete smokin ban in someareas - Apparently, dunno how true, but theres a place in the states that ifyou drivethrough in yer car smokin a cig with the window down y'd be done- and whe hve the smokin ban, $10 for a pack of cigs, Publichealthwarnins on the packets, the whole shebang.


Aint it about time we started treatin Seveeere Obesity the same way instead of rewardin it with free scooters?

I have a BMI of 30, which classifies me as obese.
Where's mah scooter.
I wash myself with a rag on a stick.


Darkman 2, arguing that a post is off topic, is in and of itself off topic.
The rest of you, calling someone a bigot will get you banned for personal abuse. As will trying to provoke someone into an arguement.

The OP was equating those who claim they are obese because of genetics with those who claim they are gay because of genetics.
It is his opinion that both are wrong.

There is your topic.
Is everyone clear on that?

JC 2K3

Dudess wrote:

As opposed to homosexuality being a choice.

Why does it matter unless you're some backwards conservative who finds the idea repulsive for no logical reason?

Dudess

You've lost me. Initially you said:

JC 2K3 wrote:

there is no concrete evidence for homosexuality being genetic and darkman2 has the right to his opinion.

(I know, you also said whether it's genetic or not, you don't care about a person's sexuality)

So I said:

What about the possibility that gay people just are gay. Just like heterosexual people just are heterosexual.

You replied:

As opposed to?

To which I replied:

As opposed to homosexuality being a choice

JC 2K3 wrote:

Why does it matter unless you're some backwards conservative who finds the idea repulsive for no logical reason?

I don't get it. Where did that come from?
Would you think darkman2 fits into that category?

Kingp35 wrote:

No where in this thread did darkman2 say that parents choose to bring their child up so they would be gay.

Yes he did. He said he believes upbringing plays a role.

Plenty of people believe that homosexuality is caused by nurture and not by nature

Proving what exactly? There may be plenty of them, but they're wrong.

You seem to be just as bad as darkman2 by saying it has to be genetic

I'm not saying it has to be genetic at all. I'm saying simply that people are gay, it's their natural orientation, just like people are heterosexual, it's their natural orientation.

refusing to acknowledge the fact that it may not be.

I'm refusing to acknowledge the fact that homosexuality may not be natural and is down to nurturing simply because that is such a nonsensical notion.
It's accepted that people are not heterosexual due to nurture, why can't the same be applied to homosexual people?

JC 2K3

My point is why does it matter whether it's natural or unnatural? You don't know for sure, you're only going with what makes most sense to you.

I'm happy to say I have no idea if it's genetic, a natural orientation or 100% to do with upbringing, but I can't see why anyone should care.

As darkman2 has stated that he has nothiong against gay people, I would say no, he does not fit into that category.

Dudess wrote:

It's accepted that people are not heterosexual due to nurture

It is?

Link?

Dudess

I can't see why anyone should care.

I see what you're saying but when someone makes the nonsensical claim that a person's sexual orientation is caused by nurture, then it's only understandable that others (e.g. I) will argue with them.

It is?

Link?

I phrased my statement badly. It's accepted that heterosexuality is not down to nurture, it's nature.

JC 2K3

Dudess wrote:

I phrased my statement badly. It's accepted that heterosexuality is not down to nurture, it's nature.

I know what you meant, but is this a scientifically proven fact or an assumption?

It's only accepted as natural because the majority of us are.

And anyway, arguing over the cause of homosexuality is fultile because A)There's no proof it's not natural and B)Who cares if it's not natural?

Kingp35

Dudess wrote:

Yes he did. He said he believes upbringing plays a role.

Yes but how did you stretch to the parents choosing to bring their child up as a homosexual from that? Different factors of upbringing could come into play, none of which have to be intentional.

Proving what exactly? There may be plenty of them, but they're wrong.

Says who? Prove to me they are wrong. It's your opinion that they are wrong, just because you believe it doesn't make it true.

I'm not saying it has to be genetic at all. I'm saying simply that people are gay, it's their natural orientation, just like people are heterosexual, it's their natural orientation.

And how exactly does it become their natural orientation if not from their genes?

I'm refusing to acknowledge the fact that homosexuality may not be natural and is down to nurturing simply because that is such a nonsensical notion.
It's accepted that people are not heterosexual due to nurture, why can't the same be applied to homosexual people?

I don't believe it is simply down to nurturing but I do believe that it may play a role. I don't know how you can say it definitely has nothing to do with it.

Again I'll say I don't know if it's genetics or if it isn't, nobody yet knows for sure why certain people are homosexual, except you of course

nesf

seamus wrote:

While it's wildly off-topic, in my mind the most convincing argument comes from it being a genetic trait, however it has nothing really to do with the genes of the person themselves, rather their parents. The sex of a person, while determined by the X-Y coding of chromosomes, is also affected by the administering of a quantity of testosterone to the feotus at a crucial stage of development. Studies (have no links) on rats have shown that it's possible to confuse rats (feminise male rats or masculinise female rats) by screwing with the amount of testosterone released at this stage of pregnancy.

In this way, although it's not a hard-coded genetic trait, it's unavoidable and uncontrollable from the individual's point of view - giving a gay man more testosterone won't make him like women. It'll only make him angry and horny. The same thing it does to most people.

We already have fairly conclusive proof that sexuality isn't linked to genes. Homosexuals can and do have children. The figures don't show that homosexual parent(s) = homosexual children.

So to use my point on-topic, childhood and young adult weight I believe is half and half linked to lifestyle and genetics. Certain people do have a tendancy to put on weight. There's no denying that. I know people who do nothing but sit on their ass, eat takeaways every night and 50 pints of beer at the weekend, and still weigh less than a irish wolfhound. By the same token, I know people who would do a normal-medium amount of exercise, generally eat healthy but still hold onto those few extra pounds. There are steps that both groups can take to alter their weight, but it has to be specifically tailored to their own bodies' traits.

As people get older, metabolisms change, muscle strength and generation changes, and it generally becomes more difficult to maintain weight. Adult obesity and childhood obesity are two very different things. Childhood obesity when caught early, is relatively easy to rectify - children want to be active, and their food intake is controlled by parents, so the weight can be lost quickly, easily and healthily. Children naturally have a higher metabolism, and their growth will consume energy where it doesn't for adults.

I've also read similar studies about rats. (Just to back up your point a bit) It's interesting and (relatively) plausible as explanations go. Environmental factors in the womb (i.e. levels of certain hormones present at different stages) do have effects on the progeny, be it people or rats or cattle etc.


The childhood obesity issue is linked to adult obesity to an extent. If you are obese as a child you are very very likely to be obese as an adult. Keeping the present generation of kids fit and healthy might be a good start in slowing and/or reversing the obesity trend. Though the debate is much more complex than is what is presented here.

Dudess

Kingp35 wrote:

I don't know how you can say it definitely has nothing to do with it.

I'm not having a go at you, Kingp35, but yes I do believe I'm right when I say gay people are simply gay. Just like straight people are simply straight.
I am physically attracted to men - nothing could make me fancy women. I'd happily browse through a magazine full of pics of beautiful women and admire them, but nothing's going to make me want to **** them. I believe your sexual orientation (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual) is the way it is, regardless of outside influences.

Smellyirishman

Dudess wrote:

I'm not having a go at you, Kingp35, but yes I do believe I'm right when I say gay people are simply gay. Just like straight people are simply straight.
I am physically attracted to men - nothing could make me fancy women. I'd happily browse through a magazine full of pics of beautiful women and admire them, but nothing's going to make me want to **** them. I believe your sexual orientation (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual) is the way it is, regardless of outside influences.

Originally, I would have been with you, you're born gay, but people have provided some great food for thought and I'm beginning to see boths sides. You're physically attracted to men now, but what if, from the day you were born, you were raised/taught to find women attractive? Just like now you would never steal, but if you had been raised to do it...

I mean, this girl was hardly born a "dog", it's the surroundings...

Dudess

Yeah, but if a person is raised among wolves, naturally their behaviour will be influenced. But I don't think sexual orientation is the same as behaviour. You just feel sexually attracted - that physical urge (whatever you want to call it!) - to whoever you're sexually attracted to. That can't be "learned". It just... is.

darkman2

This thread would have gone smoother if you actually said you were gay when you started confronting me on the issue. Id not have changed my mind but would have considered this more in my responses. I thought you were one of the middle class PC brigade:rolleyes:

Dudess

I take it you ascertained I'm a gay man on the strength of the following quote by me:

I am physically attracted to men - nothing could make me fancy women. I'd happily browse through a magazine full of pics of beautiful women and admire them, but nothing's going to make me want to **** them.

I'm actually female. I just used myself to illustrate how a person's sexuality isn't dictated by outside influences - in my case it's heterosexuality. So I guess I'm a member of the middle-class PC brigade.

Although if I was a gay man, I could still be a member of the middle-class PC brigade.